CJP Afridi opposes JCP meeting on proposed transfer of IHC judges

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi has opposed a scheduled meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) called to consider the transfer of five judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to other high courts.

The CJP had initially declined to convene the JCP meeting, but later fixed the session after it was requisitioned by a two-thirds majority of the commission’s members. The meeting is scheduled for 1pm on April 28.

The commission is expected to take up the contents of a letter written by the CJP to the JCP, in which he recorded his objections, and may also deliberate on the proposed transfer of five serving IHC judges to provincial high courts.

It is believed that the judges under consideration are IHC senior puisne judge Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz and Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro.

In his letter, the CJP warned that permitting the transfer of sitting IHC judges would create an “undesirable and potentially far-reaching precedent, effectively normalising the treatment of judges as administratively interchangeable or disposable”. He said such a course would “carry serious implications for the institutional integrity of the judiciary”, thereby “eroding public confidence” in its independence and stability.

Article 200 of the Constitution authorises the JCP to recommend transfers without the consent of the judges concerned. Before the 27th Constitutional Amendment, however, the consent of judges was required. Under the amended arrangement, the authority now rests with the JCP, where decisions are made through a majority vote, regardless of whether the CJP agrees.

CJP’s reservations

In the letter, the CJP is said to have argued that moving sitting judges out of the IHC would “in substance assume a punitive character” and could lead to “an outcome that finds no sanction anywhere in the constitutional scheme governing the superior judiciary”.

He further stated: “Besides, such transfer is entirely alien to the purpose of Article 200 of the Constitution and runs contrary to the foundational principles of judicial independence and security of tenure.”

The CJP also observed that the requisition for convening the JCP meeting for the purpose of transferring the IHC judges “could not be acceded to by the undersigned”.

Earlier remarks on transfers

During an interaction with the media on Feb 3, 2025, the CJP had supported the transfer of judges to the IHC, while acknowledging concerns linked to the principle of seniority. At the time, he described the transfer of three judges to the IHC from different provinces under Article 200 as something to be “rejoiced”, and said it set a precedent that should be followed in future.

Explaining his position then, the CJP had said, “The IHC is the symbol of four federating units and not merely a white marble building.”

He had also read out a summary stating that the transfer of judges from different federating units was fully “synchronised with the spirit of federalism as enshrined in the Constitution”.

“It is also in conformity with Section 3 of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Act 2010… [there is] thoughtful consideration behind the proposal, [which] illustrates the resolve and equitable share to the linguistic diversity of our country and [a] fair chance of representation to all the federating units in the high court of the common capital of the federation i.e. [the] IHC,” the summary stated.

The CJP had also said, “Rejoice the fact that the IHC now has judges who are Balochi-speaking or Sindhi-speaking,” and added: “Had we had a judge from the tribal area in Peshawar, I would have asked to bring him to the IHC too.”

Background to the dispute

On June 19 last year, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench, constituted under the 26th Constitutional Amendment, ruled by a 3-2 majority that the transfer of three judges from provincial high courts to the IHC was constitutional.

Five IHC judges, the Karachi Bar Association, the IHC Bar Association and others had challenged the transfer of Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar, Khadim Hussain Soomro and Muhammad Asif from the Lahore, Sindh and Balochistan high courts, respectively, before the Supreme Court.

The dispute centred on the revision of the IHC seniority list after those transfers. Justice Dogar was made the senior puisne judge, which paved the way for his appointment as IHC chief justice following Justice Aamer Farooq’s elevation to the Supreme Court.